Explore the vast range of titles available.

The rhetoric surrounding the benefits of local governments has changed: In response to many cities passing progressive local regulations, state and federal legislators have shifted from emphasizing local control to promoting broad state preemption statutes designed to reduce local power. Additionally, as a result of the work of national interest groups, much of this state-level legislation has become increasingly homogenized. Although not an exclusively Republican state-Democratic city paradigm, most recent preemption legislation has in fact been in this context. Thus, as Democrats and progressives increasingly concentrate in cities, state preemption exacerbates existing state-city tensions and in the process stifles heal experimentation and innovation. This Note examines and identifies recent trends in the subject matter and tactics of recent preemption legislation. It assesses these trends using some of the purported benefits of federalism and localism theories. Ultimately, this Note seeks to highlight the intricacies of the current debate in order to emphasize the importance of local governments in enacting innovative solutions to local problems.

Second Amendment doctrine is largely becoming a line-drawing exercise, as courts try to determine which \"Arms\" are constitutionally protected, which \"people\" are permitted to keep and bear them, and in which ways those arms and people can be regulated. But the developing legal regime has yet to account for one potentially significant set of lines: the city limits themselves. In rural areas, gun crime and gun control are relatively rare, and gun culture is strong. In cities, by contrast, rates of violent gun crime are comparatively high, and opportunities for recreational gun use are scarce. And from colonial Boston to nineteenth-century Tombstone to contemporary New York City, guns have consistently been regulated more heavily in cities—a degree of geographic variation that is hard to find with regard to any other constitutional right. This Article argues that Second Amendment doctrine and state preemption laws can and should incorporate these longstanding and sensible differences between urban and rural gun use and regulation. Doing so would present new possibilities for the stalled debate on gun control, protect rural gun culture while permitting cities to address urban gun violence, and preserve the longstanding American tradition of firearm localism.

Particularly in places with few recognizable gun control laws, \"gun neutral\" civil and criminal rules are an important but often-unnoticed basis for the legal regulation of guns. The burdens that these rules impose on the keeping and bearing of arms are at times significant, but they are also incidental, which raises hard questions about the boundaries between constitutional law, regulation, and legally enforceable prìvate ordering. Does the Second Amendment apply to civil suits for trespass, negligence, and nuisance? Does the Amendment cover gun-neutral laws of general applicability like assault and disturbing the peace? In the course of addressing these practical questions and the broader conceptual challenges that they represent, this Article fashions analytic tools that may be useful to a wide range of constitutional problems.

This paper provides a theoretical and empirical analysis of crossstate externalities associated with gun regulations that impact gun trafficking. Using tracing data, which identify the source state for crime guns recovered in destination states, we find that firearms tend to flow from states with weak laws to states with strict laws, satisfying a key theoretical condition for the existence of externalities. We also find that gun flows are more significant between nearby states, suggesting that externalities are spatial in nature. Finally, we present evidence that criminal possession of guns is higher in states exposed to weak laws in nearby states.

Simple deterrence will often fail to produce compliance commitment because it does not directly address business perceptions of the morality of regulated behavior. Responsive regulation, by contrast, seeks to build moral commitment to compliance with the law. This article shows that a regulator can overcome the deterrence trap to improve compliance commitment with the skillful use of responsive regulatory techniques that \"leverage\" the deterrence impact of its enforcement strategies with moral judgments. But this leads it into the \"compliance trap.\" The compliance trap occurs where there is a lack of political support for the moral seriousness of the law it must enforce, such as is the case with cartel enforcement in Australia. In these circumstances, business offenders are likely to interpret the moral leveraging of responsive regulation as unfair or stigmatizing, and business perceptions of regulator unfairness are likely to have a negative influence on long-term compliance with the law. Moreover, big businesses that perceive regulatory enforcement as illegitimate are also likely to actively lobby for the political emasculation of the regulator. In these circumstances, most regulators are likely to avoid conflict by taking the easy option of enforcing the law \"softly,\" and therefore ineffectively.

Background. Chronic schistosome infections are associated with T-cell hyporesponsiveness and a strong regulatory network. Murine studies have shown that schistosome infections can induce regulatory CD1dhi B cells, which inhibit inflammatory responses. Here, we evaluated the influence of regulatory B cells (Bregs) on T-cell cytokines in vitro in human schistosomiasis. Methods. Gabonese young adults were recruited from areas where Schistosoma haematobium (S.h) infections were high or low endemic. The study participants were categorized as infected or uninfected from an high endemic area or uninfected from a low endemic (nonendemic) area. Their B cells were studied for Breg subset markers and cocultured with allogenic anti-CD3-stimulated CD4⁺ T cells, followed by T-cell cytokine analysis. Results. A greater percentage of B cells from S. haematobium-infected donors expressed cytoplasmic interleukin 10(IL-10) and membrane-bound latency-associated peptide/transforming growth factor β1, compared with uninfected donors. T cells produced less interferon γ, interleukin 4, and interleukin 17 upon coculture with B cells from schistosome-infected individuals only, while the conversion to CD25hiFoxP3⁻ and the percentage of IL-10⁺ T cells was enhanced. Interestingly, depletion of the prominent IL-10-producing B-cell subset, CD1dhi cells, resulted in less IL-10⁺ T cells in the S. haematobium-infected group, while levels of FoxP3⁻ regulatory T cells remained unaffected. Conclusions. Schistosomes can induce functional Bregs in humans that may be instrumental in general T-cell hyporesponsiveness and may contribute to the increased regulatory milieu found in schistosomiasis.

In District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court made seemingly irreconcilable demands on lower courts: evaluate Second Amendment claims through history, avoid balancing, and retain as much regulation as possible. To date, lower courts have been unable to devise a test that satisfies all three of these conditions. Worse, the emerging default candidate, intermediate scrutiny, is a test that many jurists and scholars consider exceedingly manipulable. This Article argues that courts could look to the Supreme Court's Seventh Amendment jurisprudence, and in particular the Seventh Amendment's \"historical test,\" to help them devise a test for the Second. The historical test relies primarily on analogical reasoning from text, history, and tradition to determine the constitutionality of any given practice or regulation. Yet the historical test is supple enough to respond to the demands of a twenty-first-century judicial system. As such, it provides valuable insights, but also its own set of problems, for those judges and scholars struggling to implement the right to keep and bear arms.

Identifying strongly with the nation could entail a willingness to criticize the country or a refusal to do so. The studies reported here examine the extent to which masculine honor inspires the latter and, in turn, motivates teaching allegiance to youth in a manner that could discourage national criticism. Whereas Study 1 provides an initial test of this idea by evaluating blind patriotism's ability to mediate the link between honor endorsement and general support for allegiance education (e.g., singing the National Anthem at school functions), Studies 2 and 3 do so more decisively by focusing on more severe outcomes such as punishing students who refuse to pledge loyalty to the United States. The predicted pattern of mediation occurred in every case, even when honor endorsers were experimentally induced to feel anger toward the country (Study 3). Explanations for this latter finding are discussed and include the role of identity fusion in honor endorsers' commitment to the nation and the potential for real and enduring governmental threats to weaken or eliminate the pattern of mediation observed.